East-West Rail (EWR) countdown to entry into service

[Peter Sarf]

Are RMT in some parallel universe where Driver Only Operation has never been tried let alone regularly used for decades ?.

 

[800002]

In a way, that is a positive move, as it now takes the dispute into the public view, rather than simply being an uncertainty. You really do wonder why a Labour government is holding firm on driver only operation and not authorising the recruitment of guards for this service.

They've authorised the recruitment of CSI roles.
There is no need for 'Guards'.

Chiltern does not employ any 'Guards'
Zero 'guards' are employed by Chiltern Railways.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 21:57 ==

Are RMT in some parallel universe where Driver Only Operation has never been tried let alone regularly used for decades ?.

Yes. This.
Quite... it would appear.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Chiltern does not employ any 'Guards'
Zero 'guards' are employed by Chiltern Railways.

Whilst their job title is Train Manager, they're Guards for Rule Book purposes.

 

[D365]

I saw this pull into MKC today, so I lingered to see if the doors actually open on these units. Seemingly not, as the driver and other person in hi-vis (was he safety critical, I wonder ....) changed ends internally.......

Not necessarily - technicians / fitters / instructors are often mandated to wear hi-vis when out ’in the field’.

 

[800002]

Whilst their job title is Train Manager, they're Guards for Rule Book purposes.

If its not too onerous, could you please site said information / reference, please.
Im a little time depleted to undertake the requisite research.

 

[CyrusWuff]

If its not too onerous, could you please site said information / reference, please.
Im a little time depleted to undertake the requisite research.

GERT8000-Gloss (Glossary of Railway Terminology) defines Traincrew as "Driver and Guard." and GOGN3678 (Guidance Note on Competence and Training for Guards) includes the following:

G1.2.2 GERT8000 defines traincrew as the driver or guard. It is common practice across the GB mainline network for staff undertaking guard tasks to be identified with alternative titles. These could include, but are not limited to:

• Train Manager;
• Metro guard; or
• Conductor

 

[800002]

GERT8000-Gloss (Glossary of Railway Terminology) defines Traincrew as "Driver and Guard." and GOGN3678 (Guidance Note on Competence and Training for Guards) includes the following:

Thank you, i appreciate that.

 

[Carlisle]

You really do wonder why a Labour government is holding firm on driver only operation

Didn’t you realise C2C went DOO in 2004

 

[800002]

Didn’t you realise C2C went DOO in 2004

But what did it cost them (C2C)?

 

[Kite159]

Are the RMT trying to somehow spin that Oxford - Milton Keynes will somehow undermine other Chiltern services?

Especially when Chiltern have increased number of guards to support additional loco hauled services when previously the guard would leave a southbound train at Banbury.

 

[Class 317]

Does the RMT union want to expand rail or contract it to the detriment of thier members.

 

[Geeves]

Any expansion of DOO will be fought by the RMT its as simple as that. Cry and winge and say some contrived rubbish about the 70s all you like.

Blame can be placed directly at the feet of those managers who agreed to DOO vs just hiring more guards not the RMT.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Any expansion of DOO will be fought by the RMT its as simple as that. Cry and winge and say some contrived rubbish about the 70s all you like.

Blame can be placed directly at the feet of those managers who agreed to DOO vs just hiring more guards not the RMT.

The RMT's reasoning for calling for industrial action on this is disingenuous at best. There are no jobs at risk given the service doesn't exist at present. In fact, Chiltern have recruited more Train Managers due to the planned increase in loco-hauled services from the December timetable change.

I'm sure certain media will have a field day reporting this. Doubly so if it comes back as a Yes vote.

 

[sammyg901]

Indeed, does seem rather tenuous to link the DOO operation of this new line to a risk to the TM role on the mainline when as @Kite159 says there is actually an increase in compliment currently due to upcoming increased services and a roll out of loco hauled stock requiring guards south of Banbury.

Considering this is stock isolated to this line I wonder if this should have been a new TOC for launch - perhaps with most of the operation subcontracted to Chiltern!

As a local it is such a shame to see the line idle and I hope this gets resolved sooner rather than later

 

[Bald Rick]

Any expansion of DOO will be fought by the RMT its as simple as that.

Yes. And for no good reason in this case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure certain media will have a field day reporting this. Doubly so if it comes back as a Yes vote.

Regardless of its merit I am pretty sure it will. It being a "no" would set a massive precedent.

This is entirely about the ability to disrupt operations by way of industrial action. The OBS style model where the second member of staff is optional (though normally there, I've not been on a Southern train since OBSisation that didn't have one) means the RMT loses the ability to disrupt the operation through strike action and thus loses a significant amount of power. This is the real issue, not whether it's a safe form of operation or not, it's just the safety argument is more persuasive with the public.

 

[Kite159]

The RMT's reasoning for calling for industrial action on this is disingenuous at best. There are no jobs at risk given the service doesn't exist at present. In fact, Chiltern have recruited more Train Managers due to the planned increase in loco-hauled services from the December timetable change.

I'm sure certain media will have a field day reporting this. Doubly so if it comes back as a Yes vote.

As no doubt some of the more militant reps will be spinning a fantasy, that once Chiltern launch DOO on the new Oxford - Milton Keynes service, they will expand DOO to cover Banbury - Birmingham on the units, putting your jobs at risk etc etc.

The RMT don't like the proposed set-up of GBR having different business sectors, probably because it limits their impact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The RMT don't like the proposed set-up of GBR having different business sectors, probably because it limits their impact.

It is of course possible that that is precisely why they are proposing that structure!

 

[stevieinselby]

Are RMT in some parallel universe where Driver Only Operation has never been tried let alone regularly used for decades ?.

RMT's sole purpose is to look out for the interests of its members – if that means bullying and blackmailing the government to create unnecessary jobs for them then that is what they do whenever they think they can get away with it.

 

[The exile]

RMT's sole purpose is to look out for the interests of its members – if that means bullying and blackmailing the government to create unnecessary jobs for them then that is what they do whenever they think they can get away with it.

And with the same short-sightedness that bedevils the management / shareholder “side”, is incapable of looking beyond the immediate.

 

[Peter Sarf]

And with the same short-sightedness that bedevils the management / shareholder “side”, is incapable of looking beyond the immediate.

In the meantime railway line re-openings look harder and harder.

 

[800002]

In the meantime railway line re-openings look harder and harder.

Impossible, with this standoff, in this current example.

Fairly straightforward, though, in reality.
You just have to resign yourself to the fact that the bullies unions will inevitably demand the moon in any new re-opening and so be prepared to factor it into the cost / business case.

 

[Falcon1200]

You really do wonder why a Labour government is holding firm on driver only operation and not authorising the recruitment of guards for this service.

Because Labour would then have to agree to ending all DOO working and recruiting sufficient Guards to achieve this.

Are RMT in some parallel universe where Driver Only Operation has never been tried let alone regularly used for decades ?.

Indeed. RMT members work on, and travel on, DOO services every day.

Blame can be placed directly at the feet of those managers who agreed to DOO vs just hiring more guards not the RMT.

No, blame is directly on the RMT for their continuing ludicrous assertion that only by having a Guard on a train is it safe.

 

[stevieinselby]

No, blame is directly on the RMT for their continuing ludicrous assertion that only by having a Guard on a train is it safe.

Presumably RMT are happy for drivers to be paid less when on guarded services as they are not doing as much work as when on driver-only operation?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Any expansion of DOO will be fought by the RMT its as simple as that. Cry and winge and say some contrived rubbish about the 70s all you like.

Blame can be placed directly at the feet of those managers who agreed to DOO vs just hiring more guards not the RMT.

Just hiring more guards......
The technology is there and has been used for decades whatever contrived rubbish you want to believe.
You do realise that costs money and puts fares up.
Or does the money come from the magic money tree.

 

[btdrawer]

What effect would strike action have on Mk 5a services south of Banbury? Is the TM critical on that section?

 

[Bald Rick]

What effect would strike action have on Mk 5a services south of Banbury? Is the TM critical on that section?

The TM is needed. One assumes there are many contingency TMs to enable a service to continue.